Euthanasia is simply the last step of humanized healthcare from birth to death. My opinion on this matter is short, a bit on the existentialist side, and firm: If someone wants to die and is of sound mind, they should be able to.
Disabled advocates often presuppose that they know the pain of every terminally ill patient, every wheelchair-bound man or woman, and everyone who has ever experienced a debilitating disease. They do not. Take, for example, Alison Davis. Born with myelomeningocele spina bifida, doctors went so far as to try to convince her parents to abandon their daughter. They did not, and although Davis would be confined to a wheelchair for the entirety of her life and would have to continually undergo lifesaving operations for years to come, she has found purpose for herself and is living happily today. While I support her crusade to attain better treatment for handicapped persons everywhere, I disagree with her idea that because she has lived such a fabulous life (by her standards), everyone else should be mandated to find purpose and inner peace with their diseases as well. Some cannot. Chris Hill was a man who spent his youth traveling the globe, enjoying sexual activity, riding motorcycles, and the like. When he became paralyzed from the chest down in a hang-gliding accident, he lost the ability to do many of the things he once loved and life became unbearable. He ended up committing suicide on his own. Had he had access to euthanasia, he could have died in a dignified manner in a hospital, surrounded by friends and family—not in secret, alone, scared, and unsure if his attempt would even be successful. While not everyone in Hill’s situation would find it as unbearable as he did, what right does any person have to tell any other that they have to live such a life of physical and emotional pain?
The Catholic Church places an outrageous value on human life that they argue applies to everyone, regardless of individual circumstances or personal feeling on the matter. In its Declaration on Euthanasia, the church’s reasoning for opposing legalized euthanasia is that it is a “violation of divine law” and that it is “important to protect… the Christian concept of life against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse.” For a devout Catholic, these personal beliefs are more than acceptable, but for a nation who continues to boast the practice of “separation of church and state,” they are disconcerting. Federal, state, and/or local law should never be based on any religion, particularly in this case, simply because it often limits the ability of the individual to follow their own moral compass.
Personally, I believe that the philosophy of Jack Kevorkian should be followed in this country. Although I roll my eyes at the notion of him being so inflammatory as to come to court in homemade stocks, I agree with his idea that everyone possesses the right to an “easy death.” It is an issue of individual autonomy. Kevorkian has his patients sign consent forms and before he begins the procedures, he repeatedly asks them if they are sure about their decisions, demonstrating that he is not the grim reaper in the form of a man, but rather a means to suffering’s end.
It is a disservice to the patient where medical professionals prolong suffering of any kind. If the foremost rule of the Hippocratic Oath is “First, do no harm,” doctors everywhere are violating it by denying the right to an escape from pain. Therefore, I can say with conviction that when euthanasia is in the best interests of a patient, doctors are morally obligated to respect their autonomy and help them ‘til the bitter end.
Disabled advocates often presuppose that they know the pain of every terminally ill patient, every wheelchair-bound man or woman, and everyone who has ever experienced a debilitating disease. They do not. Take, for example, Alison Davis. Born with myelomeningocele spina bifida, doctors went so far as to try to convince her parents to abandon their daughter. They did not, and although Davis would be confined to a wheelchair for the entirety of her life and would have to continually undergo lifesaving operations for years to come, she has found purpose for herself and is living happily today. While I support her crusade to attain better treatment for handicapped persons everywhere, I disagree with her idea that because she has lived such a fabulous life (by her standards), everyone else should be mandated to find purpose and inner peace with their diseases as well. Some cannot. Chris Hill was a man who spent his youth traveling the globe, enjoying sexual activity, riding motorcycles, and the like. When he became paralyzed from the chest down in a hang-gliding accident, he lost the ability to do many of the things he once loved and life became unbearable. He ended up committing suicide on his own. Had he had access to euthanasia, he could have died in a dignified manner in a hospital, surrounded by friends and family—not in secret, alone, scared, and unsure if his attempt would even be successful. While not everyone in Hill’s situation would find it as unbearable as he did, what right does any person have to tell any other that they have to live such a life of physical and emotional pain?
The Catholic Church places an outrageous value on human life that they argue applies to everyone, regardless of individual circumstances or personal feeling on the matter. In its Declaration on Euthanasia, the church’s reasoning for opposing legalized euthanasia is that it is a “violation of divine law” and that it is “important to protect… the Christian concept of life against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse.” For a devout Catholic, these personal beliefs are more than acceptable, but for a nation who continues to boast the practice of “separation of church and state,” they are disconcerting. Federal, state, and/or local law should never be based on any religion, particularly in this case, simply because it often limits the ability of the individual to follow their own moral compass.
Personally, I believe that the philosophy of Jack Kevorkian should be followed in this country. Although I roll my eyes at the notion of him being so inflammatory as to come to court in homemade stocks, I agree with his idea that everyone possesses the right to an “easy death.” It is an issue of individual autonomy. Kevorkian has his patients sign consent forms and before he begins the procedures, he repeatedly asks them if they are sure about their decisions, demonstrating that he is not the grim reaper in the form of a man, but rather a means to suffering’s end.
It is a disservice to the patient where medical professionals prolong suffering of any kind. If the foremost rule of the Hippocratic Oath is “First, do no harm,” doctors everywhere are violating it by denying the right to an escape from pain. Therefore, I can say with conviction that when euthanasia is in the best interests of a patient, doctors are morally obligated to respect their autonomy and help them ‘til the bitter end.